Wether intended or coincidental (e.g. you go to the Pub wearing the colours of a Union or Football Club and by co-incidence, 2 others are in the same premise of the same affiliation. The definition of a gang is 3+ persons wearing 'affiliated colours'.
1) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-an...
2) https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/secret-report-re...
3) http://www.proctorlaw.com.au/law-blog/criminal-law/vlad-laws...
They weren't "defending violent gangs" in any way, they were providing a practical example where laws were passed to try to do what you said and they obviously didn't work as expected (nor did they solve the problem).
Maybe providing another example (or proposal) would be a better way to discuss your position.
After all...he shot police.
The difficulty with this suggestion is defining a "gang" and defining cracking down "hard".
First there are moral questions... If a single person does something bad, would that implicate an otherwise peaceful gang? If a group has an aggressive self-image, but is never violent or breaks the law, should you crack down hard?
Second, there are practical issues: it's often difficult to find everyone that's part of a "gang". Also, because of their size and organization, they often have out-sized influence and likely have protection from within the system.
Perhaps you should think a bit harder. Maybe do some reading? Maybe consider how you'd feel if your civil liberties were targeted.
> At least it wouldn't be a waste of tax payers dollars like governments are renown for doing
Sure. From the people that brought you such successes as the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan, and the DMV. I mean, obviously a "war on people in an ill-defined category that aren't actually breaking any laws we know of" is going to be super easy to execute. No doubt it'll go super well, with no wasted resources.
That example doesn't belong there. We tend to underfund government enterprises (other than the military), and then we complain that they are inefficient, so we can justify underfunding them. It's circular logic, and many government agencies are the victims of just being underfunded. I doubt that DMV employees wake up with the intention of being shitty.
Also, Comcast is your proof that just because an entity is large and private doesn't mean that customer service is better.
The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes
Article: http://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rich-people-...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18658166
I didn't object strongly to having my bags searched at every shop door, or my phone bugged, or having soldiers watch me through their SUSAT sights, or even being incorrectly detained in the back of a police Land Rover for an hour. It was annoying and uncomfortable but better than masked gunmen kicking in doors at 02:00 to deliver a kneecapping or worse.
Life involves compromise and sometimes those compromises are made with the things that are most precious, so that we can retain them in the future.
In the United States not so long ago in 2015, I had all my civil liberties ignored and when I was brought to a hospital against my civil rights by police in the state of Michigan. I was in a town with only one hospital and it being privately owned. The whole community being religious and with the hospital I later found out. The hospital had bibles in every room with a priest showing up weekly to help with our "sins" and pray the evil away. I would remove the bible from the room and it would be placed in my room against my wish every day.
Anyway, I was suffering gender dysphoria and being bullied by students at my university in association to me being different (transgender). An incident from hearsay of bullies turned into the police getting called. The officers sided with the bullies, without informing me about how I caused "a disturbance" and refused to listen to me. I was just doing my work in the computer science lab. There was only me and one of the bullies in the CS lab at the time. I argued with using my phone to record the police encounter but one officer went behind me and seized my phone so I couldn't record. I was handcuffed brought to the jail for a few minutes, while I voiced I'll be suing and then directly brought to the hospital while voicing how I wanted to stay to see a lawyer. Stayed in a hospital room for over 6 hours waiting for a nurse with two officers sitting outside the door. Nurse just listened to the officer and brought me to the psych ward.
I demanded to leave the next day but the "social worker" evaluator who works at the hospital wrote involuntary on my charts and without me even seeing a doctor for an evaluation. I later see a doctor with demanding to be let go and he wants me to be observed because the police report has hearsay against me. I tell him how I'm transgender, I would actually like to be on hormone replacement therapy if I'm stuck here and all of a sudden I was being labeled insane. They kept me there for 2 months until my insurance refused because I had turned 26 years old (was now off parents insurance) and they ended up billing $58,000.00 for the stay with them forcing antipsychotics upon me. Told by nurses & the doctor I need to take the medication or the judge will never side with me. I was assigned an ex-cop who is now a lawyer for "helping people" who are brought to the hospital for involuntary commitments.
So the lawyer I'm assigned never shows up to the hospital before my kangaroo court "trial" that was done over TV to the courtroom from the hospital and where my "lawyer" just went to the courtroom where the judge is behind a camera and with me being at the hospital talking through a videocamera next to a doctor & social worker who I'm extremely traumatized by. I Witness a judge side with the doctor and when I just voiced it was all a misunderstanding with my rights being violated. The lawyer said nothing. Before all this I called the patient advocate who works at the hospital "no surprise" who did nothing. I called numbers in the pamphlet the hospital gives you, nobody answered, I left voice mails and never received a call back. I said I wanted a second opinion or to be moved to another hospital as my legal right in the pamphlet states but was ignored.
Anyway I eventually get out and not one organization for legal aid for minorities or civil liberties violations in Michigan wanted to help me. Maybe because there is so much stigma in the US when it comes to mental illness or where I was located with being a poor university student. So long story short, nobody cares anymore about people having their civil liberties ignored and I'm surprised the person above is being downvoted. People don't care when it's already happening to people. Now in Canada pursuing medical assistance in dying because religion ruined my life while my illness is now acceptable for people to receive treatment young. Fuck everything /rant
You see the same thing with regards to treatment of people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of but society at large still treats them like they were an actual offender.
Reminds me too of stories where people get in trouble with scammers in foreign countries and the authorities are never on their side and no one will listen and there just is no logic.
It's a harrowing and horrible account to read. It's a stark realization to come to that human beings basically aren't capable of computing the "truth", so things like logical argument and rationality and evidence actually mean nothing. They appear to work a lot of the time and you have to be careful about that because it's somewhat of an illusion. The only thing we value is consensus, and once we think we've reached it the process for coming to it stops. So if you're on the wrong side of consensus and every single person is buying into the consensus and there is no one willing to permit dissent then you are very screwed. Logic doesn't exist at that point as the majority doesn't need to persuade and you have no coalition and therefore no power.
Reminds me of Man's Search For Meaning and 7 Days to Live My Life and most of the middle ages really.
If we take intralizee's recounting of the events as correct there are several levels of horrific corruption, abuse of power and religious fanaticism involved. The not wanting to even know what is going on as long as they can bill the "patient", the tons of prejudice...jesus there are soooo many levels of wrong going in there, read again, please.
Third world is maybe the wrong way to describe it, by it I am meaning the levels of corruption and poorly educated people on display there.
In a way though it is way worse, there is a horrifically well engineered synergy between state/private entities here at play to extract money from the patient's insurance whilst severely violating his rights.
Abstract your level of analysis up and away from the specific doctrinal belief systems at play here and look to the fundamental operating system of human beings.
It's not that "those people" were corrupt. It's that the operating system has some fundamentally hideous bugs in it that most of the time go unnoticed. Until they don't. Especially when they show up in concert like this.
You might call them zealots and uneducated. The problem is they were simply faithful to a specific doctrine in which they were likely well educated. There are many scenarios in which you can suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of that.
There are a strikingly large number of pretty scary "features" in the operating system of individuals and groups. That things like this happen isn't surprising. Its horrifying, but I can't say it's surprising.
If you break it down to the simplest level there are only three types of action. 1) what you want to do 2) what you are willing to do 3) what you are not willing to not do
Three things basically underpin that. a) beliefs b) incentives c) social pressures
Do the math on it. It's scary to see how easily this kind of thing can happen. When no one has an incentive to stop it and when they have significant disincentives against stopping it, and when they think it is good and they think that's what everyone else thinks.
Take a long hard look at the history of how people have treated other people over time. How many cognitive bias traps we fall into. How unable we are to come to agreement about controversial issues. Being deeply flawed is our M.O. It's why rich stream of messed up shit happens every single day.
You mentioned you were born with faith in the system and would prefer logic of emotion. This is precisely why I make the argument at a higher level of abstraction. I believe the default viewpoint is the one u put forward that we tend to assume people are reasonable. It's an unwarranted assumption that leads us to a dangerous place and a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
I believe the best way to make progress on these issues is for the wider public to understand how deeply flawed our systems for coming to conclusions are and to promote and permit dissent in order to raise the quality of thinking and decision making. That's much easier to do when at least some people are willing to say "well now hold on... it could be that WE are actually wrong about this and that warrants discussion". That's what would have given you a chance.
people who were convicted of crimes that they were later acquitted of